netdev - Re: [net-next v3 1/2] devlink: move request

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20201118163858.GC3055@nanopsycho.orion>
Date:   Wed, 18 Nov 2020 17:38:58 +0100
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:     Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...dia.com>,
        Michael Chan <michael.chan@...adcom.com>,
        Shannon Nelson <snelson@...sando.io>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>,
        Boris Pismenny <borisp@...dia.com>,
        Bin Luo <luobin9@...wei.com>, Jakub Kicinksi <kuba@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [net-next v3 1/2] devlink: move request_firmware out of driver

Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 09:08:19PM CET, jacob.e.keller@...el.com wrote:
>All drivers which implement the devlink flash update support, with the
>exception of netdevsim, use either request_firmware or
>request_firmware_direct to locate the firmware file. Rather than having
>each driver do this separately as part of its .flash_update
>implementation, perform the request_firmware within net/core/devlink.c
>
>Replace the file_name parameter in the struct devlink_flash_update_params
>with a pointer to the fw object.
>
>Use request_firmware rather than request_firmware_direct. Although most
>Linux distributions today do not have the fallback mechanism
>implemented, only about half the drivers used the _direct request, as
>compared to the generic request_firmware. In the event that
>a distribution does support the fallback mechanism, the devlink flash
>update ought to be able to use it to provide the firmware contents. For
>distributions which do not support the fallback userspace mechanism,
>there should be essentially no difference between request_firmware and
>request_firmware_direct.
>
>Signed-off-by: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>

Reviewed-by: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...dia.com>